From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Fri Jun 14 2002 - 15:12:08 MDT
Lee writes:
> I don't know of any rigorous guidelines to suggest to
> one that an apparently completely rational argument
> may have a hole in it. But one is that if the conclusion
> of an argument goes against long deeply held beliefs that
> you have, then it's wise to reserve judgment for an
> extended period.
There are a couple of other considerations you can include. For example,
is the argument genuinely new, or is it simply new to you? If it is an
old argument which has been around for a while, you can do some research
and find out how other people have responded to it. Then you can look
at the counter-arguments and see how they measure up. If on the other
hand the argument is genuinely new, then I think you are right to be
cautious about adopting it immediately. Most arguments cannot be reduced
to simple mathematical form. Often there are ambiguities relating to the
use of words and language. It is easy to be confused or misled. In that
case it is best to give the argument some time, talk it over with other
people, maybe run it by some experts in the field and see what they say.
On the other hand, I think it is dangerous to rely too heavily on
one's own long-held beliefs. Most people have an inherent built-in
conservatism which will make them reluctant to change. If you are
faced with an argument and it actually does seem very persuasive, but
goes against your long term beliefs, chances are the argument is even
better than it seems to you at the moment. Your long term beliefs will
tend to give you a bias which will oppose arguments that contradict them.
If you are able to perceive that an argument is strong, even in the face
of this bias, then that is an even better reason to adopt it.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:47 MST